I'm not entirely sure why anyone modded you insighful. Anyone paying a modest amount of attention would know you are full of shit. They built a mosq in the shadows of ground zero. The president is surrounded by Muslims who advise him on his middle east policy. For decades longer then 9/11 was around, Dearborn Michigan has had a largely Muslim population that regularly assaults and vilifies retarded Christians who think they need to say things to them. Hell, there is even videos on Youtube where they had rocks thrown at them and were physically assaulted and the cops told the Christian protesters to leave because they were causing problems spewing their speech.
Lol.. since the 70's. I been waiting on solar power to become a cost effective reality since 1876 when Grylls and Day discovered solar cells. Of course my hopes jumped enormously in 1953 when Fuller, Pearson, and Chapin discovered the silicon solar cell and increased efficiency by leaps and bounds.
Today, while they are common, they are still less cost efficient then grid power in most places and as usage increases, we are finding that their projected life spans are more of a guess then reality. For some reason, self sufficient energy is something always out of the reach of the common man. I have a 200 amp service and only occasionally do I ever need more then a 100 amp service. This 25k fuel cell is about all I need and more 90% of the time but as history suggest, it will be cost a ton more then grid power.
The mens rea only comes into play if the law states knowingly or something to that notion. If the law simply says it is illegal to download or stream unlicensed material, then it would be the same as driving on expired tags in someone else car with no insurance. You could be cited and found guilty just for the act whether you knew the tags were expired or the insurance had lapsed or not.
The laws that mens rea impact have statements about the state of mind when the law or forbidden act happens. Without that, the act itself becomes illegal or forbidden or whatever regardless of the state of mind or intent.
Well, the problem stems from aptitude tests. Companies used to give employees aptitude tests to determine if they were knowledgeable enough to do the job well. This became a complex mess when people started using these tests to discriminate against others. It was taken to court and companies found themselves losing because questions were geared more towards one sex or race or something even if it wasn't intentional so the majority of businesses started using university degrees as the credentials instead of the aptitude tests.
That is why they are told they need a college education and a high school diploma. It is because businesses wanted to rely on credentials instead of testing and opening themselves to lawsuits for acts that were ancillary (or not intentional, although some might have been) to hiring competent employees.
You are forgetting that he spread it out over 6 years. Going part time is a little more manageable then full time but yes, I agree that it is a lot different today.
Most state colleges offer tuition fees at a lower cost to residents then non residents. Ohio State's costs differences are huge too. Out of state students pay almost 150% more then Ohio residents pay.
I'm not sure if you realize how much costs have gone up. But as an example, in 2002, tuition at Ohio State was $4,788 for an Ohio state resident and $13,554 for an out of state student (in state and out of state is where you lived before going to schools, move early and save a bundle). In 2013, the tuition costs are $10,010 for an Ohio state resident and $25,726 for out of state residents.
Those numbers do not count room and board or fees associated with the years. I think Ohio State requires you to live on campus the freshman year unless you go to one of the satellite schools but you are free to live elsewhere after that. Not all of the satellite campuses have all the programs you might need to get a specific degree though. Room and board is listed at costing about $11k depending on where you look and what options you select.
I got my numbers from these sites so they might not be completely accurate.
Now, I am not trying to diminish what you did. It is well worth acknowledging that it is more then some people could accomplish even back then. But for now, if someone wanted to do the same, they would need a job making close to 25k a year right out of high school to go full time and that doesn't seem realistic. Less would be required if they went part time and added a few more years to the mix, but I think you are the exception to the norm rather then the norm.
Again, that's not my stance. My stance is there is no clear evidence of a cover-up. You are arguing the wrong point.
What exactly do you think a cover up is? It's a misdirection to hide the truth. So if a cover up was successful, then wouldn't it mean there is no clear evidence of a coverup? More importantly, if there is no evidence of a cover up, and as you think- there is no cover up, then what harm is there into investigating what happened and making sure the steps were taken to ensure it doesn't happen again?
The only harm I can see is in exposing a cover up.
They probably know, they are just making noise because that's what many politicians like to do, and enough suckers buy it to fuel the flames. It's rarely concrete, just innuendos. Issa's spinning borderlines on evil.
Who are they? Are the democrats complicit in this web of making nothing out of nothing? I mean because they have access to the briefings and so on too. None of them have come out and said this has already been explained to us and none of them have come out and said everything you are trying to find out has been disclosed in that national security briefing we got the other day.
So why is it that you think the republicans and democrats are working together to rile some people up and make unfounded accusations against the administration? That is essentially what would have to happen if what you say is true. And why do they want this question put to the people unanswered for? I mean what do they gain from allowing it to remain and inflame the populace and who gains the most.
I'm beginning to think you're a troll, and your entire job is to prove ObamaCare is Constitutional, because you really suck at this. You just don't seem to be familiar with any actual facts.
Let's not get into delusional fantasies. I said no such thing, I said people are saying it and people are suing over it. But this brings up an interesting note. If what I said makes you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, then perhaps you should explore that Idea in and of itself as it is your idea.
Reconciliation happens with every bill that either House amends. It is the process by which the House approves Senate amendments, or vice versa. Reconciliation is not against the House rules, it is the House rules. It involves having both houses vote on the final, reconciled, proposal that their committee has come up with.
Reconciliation is a specific process- rule in the house pertaining to budgetary items. It involved removing amendments passed in one house that the other won't pass and pulls the bills together insomuch as they are the same as has been voted on. What you say is true in the generic sense of how legislation works, but has no meaning whatsoever at all when talking about this because the main difference is whether or not the two bills need to be voted on again after then have been reconciled. In the normal process, the new bill would need a vote. What happened here is the senate voted on one bill, the house voted on another, those separate and different bills passed, then the senate changed bills and instead of voting again, they removed the differences as if they had bother been passed. The house rules allow that to happen as long as it doesn't increase taxes or spending.
The rest of your comment is meaningless. It talks about before the bills currently called Obamacare was voted on, not what happened when the bills finally went to the president.
So the House proposed the mandate, it voted on it;s version of the mandate, and then it voted on the Senate version of the mandate. You ain't gonna convince a Court that ObamaCare is invalid because the House didn't vote on it.
The outcomes are not better. It's a matter of differences in reporting. For instance, it is said that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate then the US. But when we look at it, we find that the US brings to term more at risk fetuses then Cuba and Cuba more or less abort them by not implementing the level of care just before delivery. The international statistics only require a live birth to be reported if it is over X amount of weight or alive longer then 48 hours. So if the baby is premature and dies before 48 hours, it doesn't count against the infant mortality rate as collected by the WHO.
As for the costs of health care, you are missing an important part. It isn't where the government pays for health care, it is where the government provides it. The difference is being owner of the system and paying an outside system to accomplish the same thing. Of course this would be the most efficient in the US if we could trust the government departments to not become riddled with waste and graft but that is a problem the US cannot seem to shake.
The costs of the US health care rose when the government got involved and started paying with no questions asked. That happened with the creation of medicare. The HMO act started increasing this rate of increase because it allowed non-licensed agents to override the medical decisions of doctors and nurses. At first, it was a matter of procedures being performed as a necessity and some suit with no medical degree saying you didn't have to do that, we aren't paying. To to recover costs, hospitals and health care providers increased the costs of everything knowing only about 2/3rds of the bill could be realistically recovered. Then through a variety of other laws designed to help pay for medicare and medicaid, the government started doing only partial reimbursements so the costs needed to be raised so that 80% of the total bill would cover 100% of what was expected.
The Medicare payments also move on a expected cost sheet where the government divides the country up into cost of living categories and then assumed the average cost of the procedures in those areas. For instance, a heart attack in Mississippi would cost less then a heart attack in New York- so the percentage of payment awarded is less in Mississippi. But what this created is an incentive to increase costs artificially where the more the average cost was the more that would be reimbursed. The savior to this was the HMO act where they are allowed to count discounted medical bills as full cost in reporting for the average. So a hospital that would charge $100 for 3 stitches could still charge that amount to insurance companies but if they charged $200 to people without insurance, then the average for medicare would use the $200 value even though 80% of their patients have to pay half that much. Before that happened, the costs had to be realistic to the market for reimbursement which is close to where other countries who have nationalized health care (own the facilities and providers) is at.
No, the HMO act was pushed through because the government was wanting to escape the costs of medicare which it created in 1965. The costs of medicare increased more then expected so they looked for a way out. The government created HMOs while subsidizing them because liberals like Ted Kennedy wanted universal care like the socialist in Europe were putting in place.
Also, it was 73, not 68 that the law is commonly attributed to. I highly doubt you know anything insightful about the law or the conditions surrounding it due to your failure to catch that mistake.
In case you are wondering, the problem with health care costs is the government paying for them. that's what caused them to rise and it's what is continuing to cause them to rise. It's the same reason why college costs are rising too.
You can track the rapid increase in the cost of healthcare right back to the HMO act of '68 and when it pumped medicare into the same HMO style managements. That by the way was the brainchild of Senator Ted Kennedy and other liberal do-good'rs, not conservative or conservatism.
It is the same problem with the cost of college increasing by leaps and bounds if you want to get a clue. Here is a hint, that has nothing to do with conservatism either.
Reread the origination clause. The senate "may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills".
If that was what happened, then all is ok. But that is not what happened and the link showed it. However, you arguing whatever is pointless as I'm not the one taking it to court and you will not be sitting on the court deciding over the case.
hat's exactly what happened. Both houses introduced the legislation at once (ie: they "proposed it" at the same time), both houses extensively amended it, and the house went with the Senate version. In legal terms that counts as the House "originating" the bill and then going along with the Senate Amendments.
And constitutionally, that cannot happen because the senate is only allowed to amend or change the house version when it pertains to taxes then the house has to vote on it again to approve of those changes or reject it outright.
Note that pretty much every revenue bill ever passed has gone through this exact process. Most of them don't end with the house agreeing to the entire Senate bill, but over the years the Senate bill has been the primary source of the final bill quite often.
Nope, I can find no other bill that has done this when it comes to taxes being raised. The democrat leadership at the time knew the house wouldn't go along with this and they did a process called reconciliation in which house and senate bills are reconciled together to form a complete bill that has been agreed on. Except that the process violated the house's own rules because it wasn't able to do that according to the rules in place if it involved manipulating revenue. This rule is in place specifically because of the constitutionality of the process.
Please name a proposal that has been un-done due to the origination clause.
Name me one that has happened in violation of the origination clause. That you will find has never happened that we know about until they attempted to snake the obamacar bills through.
Senators change taxes all the time, and if the Senate can;t amend a House bill that includes taxes the Senate is useless.
Stop being stupid. It does nothing to advance your cause. Of course the senate has the ability to purpose changes to bills sent over by the house even if they include taxes or changing the amount taxed. That is not what happened here.
It would be a pretty big deal for them to ban ObamaCare on the basis of the origination clause.
Actually, no it would not be a big deal. At least no bigger of a deal then declaring what was presented as a penalty and argued to be valid as a penalty was actually a tax and valid as a tax. It would be no bigger of a deal then the Supreme Court ruling that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Board were unconstitutional and reversing every decision they had been a part of.
It would not be a big deal at all. It would actually restore some confidence in our system and likely strengthen the trust in government at the same time.
If the host country allows it. Often the host country wants to provide most of the security rather than allow in bunches of US troops, which appears to be the case in Egypt (but their own force fucked up). Plus, the problems don't always happen near embassies.
Egypt? Benghazi is in Libya. I seriously hope that was a mistake on your part and you aren't seriously that clueless trying to argue nothing went wrong. And BTW, Libya's own security forces did not fuck up, they specifically told the US they couldn't provide adequate security for them 3 days before the event.
Also look up Robert Gates' comments on Benghazi.
I've seen and read his comments on Benghazi. I suggest you do the same but this time, pay attention to everything and not just what you think strengthens your position.
We have, but the results are not necessarily made public. Congress members have already had a look at the secret details. By "we" I originally meant the public, not investigators. My apologies for being ambiguous.
This is an outright lie. Congress has not seen an adequate investigation else they wouldn't be investigating it themselves. You don't have other congressmen coming out and saying that was already answered in the briefing we got, you have congress people coming out and saying the reason security was lax was because republicans cut the amount of increases in a budget proposal but they are saying it as if the entire budget was slashed which it was actually increased.
I have, and have concluded that most right-wing sources all full of bullshit and spin, taking stuff out of context, making gaps in knowledge into "attempts to hide" (guilty until proven innocent), cherry-picking which evidence to present, and often just plain making up stuff.
You are a complete fool. An idiot who will never know anything. It is not just right wing sources making the claims made. CNN is hardly a right wing source.
As for guilty until proven innocent, I'm not even sure why you brought that up. Investigations do that all the time in order to figure out what happened. Where innocent until proven guilty is important is inside a court or tribunal with punitive powers. Right now, an investigation can not punish anyone, it can only shed light on what happened. If those facts turn to someone needing punished, then the case can be made on it.
but please, by all means, point me to the made up stuff about this on the right or left even. Point to the just plain making up stuff that is going on. It seems to me that you are just spewing talking point and have no actual clue about any of this. This is obvious from the rest of your posts too. Now you are making unsupported accusations about others fabricating data for nefarious reasons and it appears to be you doing it.
There were 13 attacks under Bush's watch that resulted in diplomat deaths. Why are right-wingers only NOW highly curious about those kinds of problems?
I have answered this already but I guess I will have to answer it again seeing how you ignore everything that doesn't match your preconceived notions. There was no cover ups when the attacks happened under Bush, all the investigations were out in front and finished in a timely fashion and tweaks to security were made. Unlike today where everything is being covered up and the UN secretary or whatever tried to concoct a story about a movie with the administration going around apologizing for free speech as if the attacks were somehow our fault. If the administration would have cooperated in the first place, the investigations would be over and in the past by now.
You are a damned fool if you think what happened under Bush is the same as what happened in Benghazi or the investigations in the aftermath are similar.
It's difficult to be diplomatic when you are surrounded by an armed posse, and so they straddle a fine line between friendliness and safety, and there will always be risk in those jobs.
We have embassies with entire platoons of marines stationed at them. Difficult or not, it is not like we don't do it every damned day in dangerous places.
No we don't. It's already been investigated and changes in procedure have been made. But much of it is too remain secret because it involved covert personnel, activities, and buildings. The building that burned was a CIA building.
Bull shit. Complete and utter bullshit. The identities and mission of the CIA can remain secrete while the information is collected and processed. Don't pretend that we have never investigated something like this before because we have. BTW, the official mission of the CIA in Libya is known and was known before the attack. They were there with the consent of the Libyan government.
No it has not already been investigated. The investigations by the authorities that have oversight keeps getting stalled and hampered and the agents are being fucked with by the administration to ensure they don't tell anything they don't want known. Hit your parrent button a few times and follow the damn links posted or search google and you will find all sorts of articles on the specific topic proving you to be a liar.
I know that but the parent seems to think that anything christian- even if it is someone's first name, is bad therefore deserves persecution. I disagreed.
Either one that is most convenient when go to I buy a shirt. I'm not such a bigot that I would refuse to do business with someone because of their religion. It's also the reason why boycotts don't work, even if you stirr the pot enough that people become frightened of you and claim they won't buy from Microsoft or big media (RIAA and MPAA), they go ahead and do it.
Maybe you should not transfer your daddy issues onto others.
The CSM is an alright media source and your perception of Christians is likely unique to you. I know plenty of christians and your exaggerations are unreal.
Well, honest people like you describe would work. I went with imbeciles specifically because of their propensity to get caught doing something wrong. I'm not confident there are enough trustworthy people out there to fill the branches of government and it's bureaucracies or that they would be willing to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not entirely sure why anyone modded you insighful. Anyone paying a modest amount of attention would know you are full of shit. They built a mosq in the shadows of ground zero. The president is surrounded by Muslims who advise him on his middle east policy. For decades longer then 9/11 was around, Dearborn Michigan has had a largely Muslim population that regularly assaults and vilifies retarded Christians who think they need to say things to them. Hell, there is even videos on Youtube where they had rocks thrown at them and were physically assaulted and the cops told the Christian protesters to leave because they were causing problems spewing their speech.
Opportnist=ignorant and manipulatively deceptive
Lol.. since the 70's. I been waiting on solar power to become a cost effective reality since 1876 when Grylls and Day discovered solar cells. Of course my hopes jumped enormously in 1953 when Fuller, Pearson, and Chapin discovered the silicon solar cell and increased efficiency by leaps and bounds.
Today, while they are common, they are still less cost efficient then grid power in most places and as usage increases, we are finding that their projected life spans are more of a guess then reality. For some reason, self sufficient energy is something always out of the reach of the common man. I have a 200 amp service and only occasionally do I ever need more then a 100 amp service. This 25k fuel cell is about all I need and more 90% of the time but as history suggest, it will be cost a ton more then grid power.
Someone mod this person up then down for not only RTFA but understanding it.
I would say just mod him up but I was liking the fu fest going on about how people would rebel and move their home run box off shore and stuff,
The mens rea only comes into play if the law states knowingly or something to that notion. If the law simply says it is illegal to download or stream unlicensed material, then it would be the same as driving on expired tags in someone else car with no insurance. You could be cited and found guilty just for the act whether you knew the tags were expired or the insurance had lapsed or not.
The laws that mens rea impact have statements about the state of mind when the law or forbidden act happens. Without that, the act itself becomes illegal or forbidden or whatever regardless of the state of mind or intent.
Well, the problem stems from aptitude tests. Companies used to give employees aptitude tests to determine if they were knowledgeable enough to do the job well. This became a complex mess when people started using these tests to discriminate against others. It was taken to court and companies found themselves losing because questions were geared more towards one sex or race or something even if it wasn't intentional so the majority of businesses started using university degrees as the credentials instead of the aptitude tests.
That is why they are told they need a college education and a high school diploma. It is because businesses wanted to rely on credentials instead of testing and opening themselves to lawsuits for acts that were ancillary (or not intentional, although some might have been) to hiring competent employees.
I'm not sure you can quantify that statement with any intelligible facts.
The bottom line is that poor people all have struggles they need to cope with.
You are forgetting that he spread it out over 6 years. Going part time is a little more manageable then full time but yes, I agree that it is a lot different today.
Most state colleges offer tuition fees at a lower cost to residents then non residents. Ohio State's costs differences are huge too. Out of state students pay almost 150% more then Ohio residents pay.
http://undergrad.osu.edu/money-matters/tuition-and-fees.html
I suggest moving early and taking advantage of the differences too.
I'm not sure if you realize how much costs have gone up. But as an example, in 2002, tuition at Ohio State was $4,788 for an Ohio state resident and $13,554 for an out of state student (in state and out of state is where you lived before going to schools, move early and save a bundle). In 2013, the tuition costs are $10,010 for an Ohio state resident and $25,726 for out of state residents.
Those numbers do not count room and board or fees associated with the years. I think Ohio State requires you to live on campus the freshman year unless you go to one of the satellite schools but you are free to live elsewhere after that. Not all of the satellite campuses have all the programs you might need to get a specific degree though. Room and board is listed at costing about $11k depending on where you look and what options you select.
I got my numbers from these sites so they might not be completely accurate.
http://undergrad.osu.edu/money-matters/tuition-and-fees.html
http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/ohio/ohio-state-university-main-campus/#.Ug8hsIFAzcs
Now, I am not trying to diminish what you did. It is well worth acknowledging that it is more then some people could accomplish even back then. But for now, if someone wanted to do the same, they would need a job making close to 25k a year right out of high school to go full time and that doesn't seem realistic. Less would be required if they went part time and added a few more years to the mix, but I think you are the exception to the norm rather then the norm.
What exactly do you think a cover up is? It's a misdirection to hide the truth. So if a cover up was successful, then wouldn't it mean there is no clear evidence of a coverup? More importantly, if there is no evidence of a cover up, and as you think- there is no cover up, then what harm is there into investigating what happened and making sure the steps were taken to ensure it doesn't happen again?
The only harm I can see is in exposing a cover up.
Who are they? Are the democrats complicit in this web of making nothing out of nothing? I mean because they have access to the briefings and so on too. None of them have come out and said this has already been explained to us and none of them have come out and said everything you are trying to find out has been disclosed in that national security briefing we got the other day.
So why is it that you think the republicans and democrats are working together to rile some people up and make unfounded accusations against the administration? That is essentially what would have to happen if what you say is true. And why do they want this question put to the people unanswered for? I mean what do they gain from allowing it to remain and inflame the populace and who gains the most.
Let's not get into delusional fantasies. I said no such thing, I said people are saying it and people are suing over it. But this brings up an interesting note. If what I said makes you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, then perhaps you should explore that Idea in and of itself as it is your idea.
Reconciliation is a specific process- rule in the house pertaining to budgetary items. It involved removing amendments passed in one house that the other won't pass and pulls the bills together insomuch as they are the same as has been voted on. What you say is true in the generic sense of how legislation works, but has no meaning whatsoever at all when talking about this because the main difference is whether or not the two bills need to be voted on again after then have been reconciled. In the normal process, the new bill would need a vote. What happened here is the senate voted on one bill, the house voted on another, those separate and different bills passed, then the senate changed bills and instead of voting again, they removed the differences as if they had bother been passed. The house rules allow that to happen as long as it doesn't increase taxes or spending.
The rest of your comment is meaningless. It talks about before the bills currently called Obamacare was voted on, not what happened when the bills finally went to the president.
read that link I posted.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=all
The outcomes are not better. It's a matter of differences in reporting. For instance, it is said that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate then the US. But when we look at it, we find that the US brings to term more at risk fetuses then Cuba and Cuba more or less abort them by not implementing the level of care just before delivery. The international statistics only require a live birth to be reported if it is over X amount of weight or alive longer then 48 hours. So if the baby is premature and dies before 48 hours, it doesn't count against the infant mortality rate as collected by the WHO.
As for the costs of health care, you are missing an important part. It isn't where the government pays for health care, it is where the government provides it. The difference is being owner of the system and paying an outside system to accomplish the same thing. Of course this would be the most efficient in the US if we could trust the government departments to not become riddled with waste and graft but that is a problem the US cannot seem to shake.
The costs of the US health care rose when the government got involved and started paying with no questions asked. That happened with the creation of medicare. The HMO act started increasing this rate of increase because it allowed non-licensed agents to override the medical decisions of doctors and nurses. At first, it was a matter of procedures being performed as a necessity and some suit with no medical degree saying you didn't have to do that, we aren't paying. To to recover costs, hospitals and health care providers increased the costs of everything knowing only about 2/3rds of the bill could be realistically recovered. Then through a variety of other laws designed to help pay for medicare and medicaid, the government started doing only partial reimbursements so the costs needed to be raised so that 80% of the total bill would cover 100% of what was expected.
The Medicare payments also move on a expected cost sheet where the government divides the country up into cost of living categories and then assumed the average cost of the procedures in those areas. For instance, a heart attack in Mississippi would cost less then a heart attack in New York- so the percentage of payment awarded is less in Mississippi. But what this created is an incentive to increase costs artificially where the more the average cost was the more that would be reimbursed. The savior to this was the HMO act where they are allowed to count discounted medical bills as full cost in reporting for the average. So a hospital that would charge $100 for 3 stitches could still charge that amount to insurance companies but if they charged $200 to people without insurance, then the average for medicare would use the $200 value even though 80% of their patients have to pay half that much. Before that happened, the costs had to be realistic to the market for reimbursement which is close to where other countries who have nationalized health care (own the facilities and providers) is at.
No, the HMO act was pushed through because the government was wanting to escape the costs of medicare which it created in 1965. The costs of medicare increased more then expected so they looked for a way out. The government created HMOs while subsidizing them because liberals like Ted Kennedy wanted universal care like the socialist in Europe were putting in place.
Also, it was 73, not 68 that the law is commonly attributed to. I highly doubt you know anything insightful about the law or the conditions surrounding it due to your failure to catch that mistake.
In case you are wondering, the problem with health care costs is the government paying for them. that's what caused them to rise and it's what is continuing to cause them to rise. It's the same reason why college costs are rising too.
You can track the rapid increase in the cost of healthcare right back to the HMO act of '68 and when it pumped medicare into the same HMO style managements. That by the way was the brainchild of Senator Ted Kennedy and other liberal do-good'rs, not conservative or conservatism.
It is the same problem with the cost of college increasing by leaps and bounds if you want to get a clue. Here is a hint, that has nothing to do with conservatism either.
lol.. I guess it wouldn't be slashdot without the polititards wasting mod points on everything they don't agree with.
I think the special thing about this is the speed in which it happened and of course now, the explanation to why it happened so quickly.
I agree with your assessment of the overall scheme of things.
The News in this seems to be that AOL divisions are starting to melt down so bring on the competition and sell your stocks.
If that was what happened, then all is ok. But that is not what happened and the link showed it. However, you arguing whatever is pointless as I'm not the one taking it to court and you will not be sitting on the court deciding over the case.
And constitutionally, that cannot happen because the senate is only allowed to amend or change the house version when it pertains to taxes then the house has to vote on it again to approve of those changes or reject it outright.
Nope, I can find no other bill that has done this when it comes to taxes being raised. The democrat leadership at the time knew the house wouldn't go along with this and they did a process called reconciliation in which house and senate bills are reconciled together to form a complete bill that has been agreed on. Except that the process violated the house's own rules because it wasn't able to do that according to the rules in place if it involved manipulating revenue. This rule is in place specifically because of the constitutionality of the process.
Name me one that has happened in violation of the origination clause. That you will find has never happened that we know about until they attempted to snake the obamacar bills through.
Stop being stupid. It does nothing to advance your cause. Of course the senate has the ability to purpose changes to bills sent over by the house even if they include taxes or changing the amount taxed. That is not what happened here.
Actually, no it would not be a big deal. At least no bigger of a deal then declaring what was presented as a penalty and argued to be valid as a penalty was actually a tax and valid as a tax. It would be no bigger of a deal then the Supreme Court ruling that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Board were unconstitutional and reversing every decision they had been a part of.
It would not be a big deal at all. It would actually restore some confidence in our system and likely strengthen the trust in government at the same time.
Egypt? Benghazi is in Libya. I seriously hope that was a mistake on your part and you aren't seriously that clueless trying to argue nothing went wrong. And BTW, Libya's own security forces did not fuck up, they specifically told the US they couldn't provide adequate security for them 3 days before the event.
I've seen and read his comments on Benghazi. I suggest you do the same but this time, pay attention to everything and not just what you think strengthens your position.
We have, but the results are not necessarily made public. Congress members have already had a look at the secret details. By "we" I originally meant the public, not investigators. My apologies for being ambiguous.
This is an outright lie. Congress has not seen an adequate investigation else they wouldn't be investigating it themselves. You don't have other congressmen coming out and saying that was already answered in the briefing we got, you have congress people coming out and saying the reason security was lax was because republicans cut the amount of increases in a budget proposal but they are saying it as if the entire budget was slashed which it was actually increased.
You are a complete fool. An idiot who will never know anything. It is not just right wing sources making the claims made. CNN is hardly a right wing source.
As for guilty until proven innocent, I'm not even sure why you brought that up. Investigations do that all the time in order to figure out what happened. Where innocent until proven guilty is important is inside a court or tribunal with punitive powers. Right now, an investigation can not punish anyone, it can only shed light on what happened. If those facts turn to someone needing punished, then the case can be made on it.
but please, by all means, point me to the made up stuff about this on the right or left even. Point to the just plain making up stuff that is going on. It seems to me that you are just spewing talking point and have no actual clue about any of this. This is obvious from the rest of your posts too. Now you are making unsupported accusations about others fabricating data for nefarious reasons and it appears to be you doing it.
I have answered this already but I guess I will have to answer it again seeing how you ignore everything that doesn't match your preconceived notions. There was no cover ups when the attacks happened under Bush, all the investigations were out in front and finished in a timely fashion and tweaks to security were made. Unlike today where everything is being covered up and the UN secretary or whatever tried to concoct a story about a movie with the administration going around apologizing for free speech as if the attacks were somehow our fault. If the administration would have cooperated in the first place, the investigations would be over and in the past by now.
You are a damned fool if you think what happened under Bush is the same as what happened in Benghazi or the investigations in the aftermath are similar.
We have embassies with entire platoons of marines stationed at them. Difficult or not, it is not like we don't do it every damned day in dangerous places.
Bull shit. Complete and utter bullshit. The identities and mission of the CIA can remain secrete while the information is collected and processed. Don't pretend that we have never investigated something like this before because we have. BTW, the official mission of the CIA in Libya is known and was known before the attack. They were there with the consent of the Libyan government.
No it has not already been investigated. The investigations by the authorities that have oversight keeps getting stalled and hampered and the agents are being fucked with by the administration to ensure they don't tell anything they don't want known. Hit your parrent button a few times and follow the damn links posted or search google and you will find all sorts of articles on the specific topic proving you to be a liar.
I know that but the parent seems to think that anything christian- even if it is someone's first name, is bad therefore deserves persecution. I disagreed.
Either one that is most convenient when go to I buy a shirt. I'm not such a bigot that I would refuse to do business with someone because of their religion. It's also the reason why boycotts don't work, even if you stirr the pot enough that people become frightened of you and claim they won't buy from Microsoft or big media (RIAA and MPAA), they go ahead and do it.
Maybe you should not transfer your daddy issues onto others.
The CSM is an alright media source and your perception of Christians is likely unique to you. I know plenty of christians and your exaggerations are unreal.
Well, honest people like you describe would work. I went with imbeciles specifically because of their propensity to get caught doing something wrong. I'm not confident there are enough trustworthy people out there to fill the branches of government and it's bureaucracies or that they would be willing to do so.